Mass Internet censorship to go live in the UK

[Lady Soniko]

You can pretty much guarantee that if this passes suit here, America will most likely take next steps to follow Cameron's example to show that they "Support" our choices.

[iDEATH]

So basically, they just censored the entire internet?

 

Btw UK people, sign this if you want to show your voice.

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746

 

What's the ammount of signatures these things need to get noticed again? 30,000 rings a bell, we're just under that.

I've been linking to this on facebook constantly but nobody seems to give a shit, link to a cat gif though and everybody goes crazy with glee.

 

The longer this whole thing goes on the more depessed it is getting me. I'm really worried about the precedent this sets and the possibilities of censorship this bill throws up.

Honestly, every time something new surrounding this comes to light, my heart just sinks....

[Dizcrybe]

You can pretty much guarantee that if this passes suit here, America will most likely take next steps to follow Cameron's example to show that they "Support" our choices.

 

Oh no please don't say things like that. I don't wanna believe our government is THAT stupid.

 

(then again I could always move to Canada)

[Tani Coyote]

I may not live over there, but either A, this Cameron fellow (I'm not up to date with politics) is manipulating people's pornophobia so he can censor media and take away the UK's individuality or B, he believes so many stereotypes about mature content that he has lost reasoning.

 

I guess piracy as an excuse for draconian censorship got stale, is all.

 

not referring to anyone, I forgot to put a coma between You and "people" you know, " I bet you, People are agreeing to this blindly"

 

My misunderstanding then!

 

You can pretty much guarantee that if this passes suit here, America will most likely take next steps to follow Cameron's example to show that they "Support" our choices.

Given that red states are the biggest consumers of porn... I can only imagine the bloodshed if they actually had the gall to pass such.

Our government tries stuff like this all the time and they are swiftly shut down. While American voters are normally pretty lukewarm towards politics, some topics such as taxes, immigration and privacy quickly get them riled up and eager to throw some people out of office. Politicians may be buddies with the wealthy, but they will happily throw the wealthy under the bus if election is at stake. Really that's the benefit of having a separate economic and political elite - they can check each other as much as they collude.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Turbo the Punk]

Slightly off topic but I feel it's a relevant addition.

 

If this discussion sparked anything at all, it should be that we should all be more accepting towards the interests of others, and not try and attempt a complete ban of content that doesn't appeal to the supposed "majority". In doing so perhaps future attempts to outright censor nearly everything online, similar to this one could be avoided in the future.

[PickleBrows]

It seems that the Co-operative is having the same idea:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027

 

 

 

The Co-operative has given so-called lads' mags six weeks to cover up their front pages with sealed "modesty bags" or be taken off sale in its stores.

 

What fun this is turning out to be.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Liam The Animator

[Remy]

 

Given that red states are the biggest consumers of porn... I can only imagine the bloodshed if they actually had the gall to pass such.

Just because red states consume a fuckload of porn doesn't mean they're willing to stand up for it, or fess up about it, I imagine. the reason bills like this get through is because of the perceived shame factor. No yuppie/businessman/FAMILY PERSON is going to get up on a soapbox and preach about how the porn needs to stay. They'd rather suck it up and import titty mags from mexico.

 

 

 

Just read the thing about the forums, and the full breadth of this filter today.

 

Disgusting to see that they're pulling the whole "say it's to stop child porn"  when it's actually "we just wanna censor the fuck out of the internet"

 

now how bad you think this is depends on how much you trust your loving government, but any kind of censorship of either communication or media puts a bad fucking taste in my mouth. disgusting. putrid.

 

and now they're censoring the lads mags? do they realise what removing all the boobs will do to the chavs of england? they're heading towards an uprising ala egypt or syria

[Covskin]

And yet the Co-Op has no issue with the Daily Sport...

 

Every day, I go to pick up the i, and its placed next to this rag. Its the very first thing you see in the store.

[Tani Coyote]

If this discussion sparked anything at all, it should be that we should all be more accepting towards the interests of others, and not try and attempt a complete ban of content that doesn't appeal to the supposed "majority". In doing so perhaps future attempts to outright censor nearly everything online, similar to this one could be avoided in the future.

 

Really that's one reason I like America's independent judiciary. It handed down a ruling on the issue of flag burning that an act's popular approval or lack thereof was not good grounds for determining its legality. Whereas anything that's enjoyed by Parliament can pass without challenge. While there's the polls, that assumes most people care enough; a group of specialized judges who can review and overturn legislation is a much better idea, as they can devote their time fully to such review. Most people are too busy caring about romance, their jobs, their family, etc. to really give a hoot about politics.

 

It seems that the Co-operative is having the same idea:

 

What fun this is turning out to be.

 

I really wish people were able to swallow their delicate sensibilities instead of creating such a ruckus companies censor stuff because they fear a loss of business.

 

Just because red states consume a fuckload of porn doesn't mean they're willing to stand up for it, or fess up about it, I imagine. the reason bills like this get through is because of the perceived shame factor. No yuppie/businessman/FAMILY PERSON is going to get up on a soapbox and preach about how the porn needs to stay. They'd rather suck it up and import titty mags from mexico.

Oh they wouldn't defend it on the basis of porn.

They'd defend it because it'd be Obama and the Democrats proposing it presumably, and as we know, Obama is the socialist language's word for Satan in America.

Now, were it a Republican regime in power here, who knows what'd happen.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Tara]

Wow, looking at that list is incredible.  Not only are the descriptors shockingly vague, but also actually list useful informative sites, which was kind of my fear from the beginning.  Anorexia/eating disorder websites?  Nope, can't have people seeking help for their eating disorder, because of "the children."  I can understand smoking/drinking sites if it refers to websites that sell and/or advertise such products, but what possible use could there be in restricting access to material about anorexia and eating disorders in general?  There is literally no reason to.

 

And yes, as others have stated, the fact that "web forums" are listed rather blatantly speaks volumes about their true intentions, which could potentially devestate the web at large since you'll be hard-pressed to find a website in this day and age that doesn't have some sort of user-to-user interaction.  I fear that Super Soniko may be correct in that many may blindly agree to this, not understanding the full implications.  Hopefully someone will see the "web forums" thing and combat it as a violation of free speech, which it very much is.

[Stacy]

Blocking Smoking and Drinking related sites? What a load of shite. Next they will be sending people around houses making sure parents aren't smoking and drinking around their children.

 

I hate smoking personally. But the way Smokers are treated these days is fucking awful. You can't look at a packet of fags without wanting to vomit at the images they stick on them. It doesn't work people still smoke regardless of them, all those images do is make people sick.

 

Its all very amusing. Government enforces all this non smoking regulations but won't ban it outright because they make money from taxing it.

 

The only place I don't like smoking is in restaurants. Bars and Pubs should have smoking and non-smoking sections, they use to. 

Edited July 30, 2013 by BW199148

[Covskin]

Wow, looking at that list is incredible.  Not only are the descriptors shockingly vague, but also actually list useful informative sites, which was kind of my fear from the beginning.  Anorexia/eating disorder websites?  Nope, can't have people seeking help for their eating disorder, because of "the children."  I can understand smoking/drinking sites if it refers to websites that sell and/or advertise such products, but what possible use could there be in restricting access to material about anorexia and eating disorders in general? 

 

I believe the websites they would claim to be blocking are supposed "pro-anorexia" websites, where tabloids say people actively encourage each other to starve themselves thin and are proud of their condition.

 

Though of course, you're absolutely right about the vague description meaning websites that could actually help people will be unnecessarily blocked too.

[Tani Coyote]

Its all very amusing. Government enforces all this non smoking regulations but won't ban it outright because they make money from taxing it.

 

Every government, no matter how democratic, only cares about gaining, maintaining, and expanding power. Money being the basis of most things... taxes are an excellent way to go about this.

/end cynicism

 

I believe the websites they would claim to be blocking are supposed "pro-anorexia" websites, where tabloids say people actively encourage each other to starve themselves thin and are proud of their condition.

If not for my free market principles I'd almost agree with such a policy. The obsession with thinness is a tragedy that afflicts women the most by far and explains much about their higher suicide attempt rate; countless women who are in perfectly good health are convinced they are fat.

Granted this is ultimately a result of our culture's idiotic social conditioning, but still.

[Stacy]

 

Every government, no matter how democratic, only cares about gaining, maintaining, and expanding power. Money being the basis of most things... taxes are an excellent way to go about this.

/end cynicism

 

Yeah I know I was pointing out the irony of it though. 

[Willsy]

Found this on Youtube:

 

[Tara]

I believe the websites they would claim to be blocking are supposed "pro-anorexia" websites, where tabloids say people actively encourage each other to starve themselves thin and are proud of their condition.

 

Though of course, you're absolutely right about the vague description meaning websites that could actually help people will be unnecessarily blocked too.

Ah, yes, I guess I wasn't thinking about that.  But that's part that upsets me.  It doesn't say specifically "Pro-Anorexia/Eating Disorder" websites.  It just says "Anorexia/Eating Disorder websites."  If it had specifically said "Pro-Anorexia" I wouldn't have seen it as a problem for any other reason than the fact that it is censorship.

 

Found this on Youtube:

 

This is beautiful.

[Katzii]

I can understand smoking/drinking sites if it refers to websites that sell and/or advertise such products

 

 Guess I won't be able to order me shopping online then, since Tesco sells both booze and ciggies!

[Willsy]

Will SSMB be blocked? Obviously, because fuck isn't censored

[kimplix]

Welp. Guess i'll need to bump my phone internet data to unlimited. I'm quite pissed off by this to be honest. Not only that there's gonna be a mass change to the internet community, but who knows what'll happen now? We have Parental controls for quite a few years now and this shitty news had to pop up. Fuck cameron and his shitty ways

Edited July 31, 2013 by kimplix

[Katzii]

Who's to say that this won't affect mobile phone browsing, though?

[kimplix]

Who's to say that this won't affect mobile phone browsing, though?

If it does, then... then...

[Tara]

 Guess I won't be able to order me shopping online then, since Tesco sells both booze and ciggies!

I'm not saying it's right, but I can see they're reasoning.  Really, though, it should--and is--the responsibility of the parent to talk their children about that if this truly is "for the children."

 

But as we already established, it's not.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

I'm not saying it's right, but I can see they're reasoning.  Really, though, it should--and is--the responsibility of the parent to talk their children about that if this truly is "for the children."

 

But as we already established, it's not.

Maybe that's their master plan: Take the responsibility off parents' shoulders so they can secretly mold children into braindead hillbillies, thus allowing for the Rich White Racist Conservative Technology hating 1950s era Neo-Christian Corporate Man Regime to control them via propaganda and slander.

[Kevin]

Who's to say that this won't affect mobile phone browsing, though?

It already has. You have to provide ID to the mobile provider before adult content is unblocked.

[Tani Coyote]

The good news is that even China's famous firewall still has gigantic holes in it if you know where to look.

Presumably this will be no different.

And given the UK's history as a cradle of liberty, good luck getting anything remotely as secure as China's firewall, Camerass.